Republican Senators John McCain, Scott Brown, and Susan Collins all support an effort by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, to expand abortion access for military women who are raped. But despite bipartisan support in the Senate, Shaheen's proposal may not make it into the final version of the 2013 defense authorization bill—because House Republicans oppose it.

If Shaheen's measure passes, military families will finally have the same access to abortion that other federal employees already receive. Unlike the rest of the federal government, the Department of Defense currently only provides abortion coverage if the life of the mother is at stake. Under current law, if a State Department employee is raped, her government health insurance plan will pay for an abortion if she wants one. But if an Army medic serving in Afghanistan is raped and becomes pregnant, she can't use her military health plan to pay for an abortion. If she does decide to get an abortion, she will have to pay for it with her own money. And if she can't prove she was raped—which is difficult before an investigation is completed—she may have to look for services off base, which can be dangerous or impossible in many parts of the world.

"We have more than 200,000 women serving on active duty in our military," Shaheen tells Mother Jones. "They should have the same rights to affordable reproductive health services as all of the civilians who they protect."

In late May, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved Shaheen's amendment, attaching it to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. McCain, the committee's top Republican, voted in favor, as did Brown and Collins. Shaheen is "hopeful" her proposal has enough support to be included in the final bill. The NDAA still needs a vote on the Senate floor. But for Shaheen's amendment, there's a bigger problem: the Republican-controlled House.

"We don't really understand why anybody would oppose [Shaheen's bill]," says Sharon Levin, the director of federal reproductive health policy at the National Women's Law Center. "The only reason it wouldn't go through is if the Republican leadership in the House tried to block it."

That appears likely. A GOP staffer "familiar with defense issues" told Army Times last week that the Shaheen amendment "stands little chance of surviving" when the House and Senate meet to work out their differences on the defense bill. "Historically, social provisions that are not reflected in both bills heading into conference don't survive," the staffer said—conceding that the House version of the defense bill will not include anything like Shaheen's proposal.

Shaheen says the story of a young woman stationed in Korea who was raped by a fellow soldier demonstrates why this law needs to be changed. The woman's military health insurance wouldn't cover an abortion, and she could not find a safe place to have one off base. In the end, she lost her job, and later had a miscarriage. "This is somebody who wanted to make the military her career, and she was ultimately forced out because of a situation that was not of her making," Shaheen says. "Most of the women affected here are enlisted women who are making about $18,000 a year. They're young, they don't have access to a lot of resources. Many of them are overseas."

Current Pentagon policy is more restrictive than the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used to provide abortion services except in the case of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is endangered. The DOD enacted its stricter, life-of-the-mother-only limit on abortions in 1979. In 1988, the law was tightened again—Congress now forbids women from using their own money to pay for abortions in military health centers unless they are a victim of rape or incest, or if their life is at risk.

The military reported 471 rapes of servicemembers in 2011 alone. The true number is likely far higher—the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office estimates that only about 13.5 percent of all rapes and sexual assaults in the military are actually reported. The Women's Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress estimates that several hundred women in the military become pregnant as a result of rape each year.

But despite numerous reform efforts over the past several decades, including failed proposals in 2010 and 2011, the Pentagon's strict anti-abortion policies endure today.

Shaheen hopes that this year will be different. The Stand with Servicewomen campaign, organized by retired military men and women in partnership with a coalition of civil and reproductive rights groups, is backing her effort. "When a woman comes in the military comes in the military, she's guaranteed health care," says Col. Elizabeth Fleming, a retired Army veteran who now practices law in Alaska, who was in DC recently to lobby senators on Shaheen's amendment. "If this is excluded, she's not getting it."

Another vocal vet is Joellen Oslund, who became the Navy's first woman helicopter pilot in 1974, and in 1993 was one of the first female aviators promoted to the rank of captain. Now retired, she says she hopes that granting access to abortion care for women in the military—at least for victims of rape—will be relatively non-controversial. "We lost these privileges and these rights a little bit at a time, we're going to have to get them back a little bit at a time," Oslund says. "This is the one piece that's probably the least controversial, and helps the most people."

No, the people who rape these females are the scum. It's mostly the people in the military that rape their own.
They have known about this for a long time and have done nothing about it.

Killing the baby is not the answer. Killing the ones who rape is the only answer.

Supafly

2012-06-13, 16:30

You are not serious about if you would absolutely go and get your daughter an abortion if she would have been raped?

Would you?

vodkazvictim

2012-06-13, 16:53

:facepalm:
Couldn't make it up...

Mayhem

2012-06-13, 17:48

You are not serious about if you would absolutely go and get your daughter an abortion if she would have been raped?

Would you?

If it's me you're asking, yes. I would give my daughter any assistance she needed to get an abortion, whether or not she was raped. Then I would take her home, hand her over to her mothers' care, load the 12 gauge and go out for the evening (in the event of rape).

xfire

2012-06-14, 12:32

If it's me you're asking, yes. I would give my daughter any assistance she needed to get an abortion, whether or not she was raped. Then I would take her home, hand her over to her mothers' care, load the 12 gauge and go out for the evening (in the event of rape).

Call me if you think you might need some help. A retroactive abortion on the raping bastard is just what the doctor ordered.

vodkazvictim

2012-06-14, 12:34

load the 12 gauge and go out for the evening (in the event of rape).
:yesyes:
Rapists are inhuman.

BlueBalls

2012-06-14, 12:47

Nice to know all of that "Support the troops" rhetoric, was just that.

Mayhem

2012-06-14, 14:45

Nice to know all of that "Support the troops" rhetoric, was just that.

That is exactly right. Repubs only "support" those who support their narrow world view. The blatant hypocrisy of these people is off the charts.

I inadvertantly started thinking about this issue last night while I was at work and one of my players asked me if I was alright. I was so pissed that it showed in the middle of a poker game. 2-7 Triple Draw, no less. So much for my own "poker face". :mad:

PlumpRump

2012-06-14, 18:45

That is exactly right. Repubs only "support" those who support their narrow world view. The blatant hypocrisy of these people is off the charts.

Republicans have never voted for federally funded abortions, where's the hypocrisy?

Mayhem

2012-06-15, 02:03

Republicans have never voted for federally funded abortions, where's the hypocrisy?

The hypocrisy comes from their stance that they "Support Our Troops" when obviously they do not. Forcing a servicewoman to give birth to a rapists' baby hardly counts as support.

Why does this have to be explained?

Supafly

2012-06-15, 09:08

If it's me you're asking, yes. I would give my daughter any assistance she needed to get an abortion, whether or not she was raped. Then I would take her home, hand her over to her mothers' care, load the 12 gauge and go out for the evening (in the event of rape).

I was asking Will ;)

darkwarrior3007

2012-06-15, 10:30

I was asking Will ;)

I thought that was quite obvious to be honest.

Supafly

2012-06-15, 10:45

Thanks :)

Mayhem

2012-06-15, 11:12

The phrasing of the question threw me off. That and the fact that Will's stance seems to be obvious. If his daughter became pregnant by a rapist, he would insist that it be carried to term, at which time Will would shower the newborn babe with presents and affection, take the wee tyke under his wing, guard and protect it and play an active part in its growth and development.

At least if it was a white rapist.

Will E Worm

2012-06-15, 15:55

I was asking Will ;)

Really? What did the baby do to deserve the death penalty?

PlumpRump

2012-06-15, 16:40

The hypocrisy comes from their stance that they "Support Our Troops" when obviously they do not. Forcing a servicewoman to give birth to a rapists' baby hardly counts as support.

Why does this have to be explained?

They do "support our troops," by fighting Dems tooth and nail for larger defense budgets. No one is forcing the woman to give birth to the baby, they are simply saying that the federal government is not going to subsidize abortions, under any condition.

You're definitely missing the point and that's sad for you. And you are mistaken by claiming that they are fighting for larger defense budgets (or that bigger automatically means better). Republicans as well as Dems (including John McCain) are dialing back the military budget and streamlining the military. You might want to check out the news once in a while.

No one is forcing the woman to give birth to the baby

So a woman can't even serve her country in uniform without you conservatives treating her with the same 2nd class citizen bullshit that you treat all all other women with? We can't keep them safe from sexual assault in the first place, now she should be ignored when she is raped? Utterly pathetic and a key reason why I defected from your side and got with the people that actually give a shit about people other than ourselves ......and our wallets.

PlumpRump

2012-06-15, 17:03

...So a woman can't even serve her country in uniform without you conservatives treating her with the same 2nd class citizen bullshit that you treat all all other women with? We can't keep them safe from sexual assault in the first place, now she should be ignored when she is raped? Utterly pathetic and a key reason why I defected from your side and got with the people that actually give a shit about people other than ourselves ......and our wallets.

I love how people act like having an abortion is akin to the incident never happening at all. Like having an abortion wipes the woman's mind clean of the assault. No one is ignoring the rape, they're simply stating the killing a baby is not a cure all, there's a difference. Taking a life will not repair any of the psychological damage done to the woman, it will simply be killing a baby.

I, for one, am soundly against baby killing, especially federally funded baby killing. I guess we differ on this issue.

Mayhem

2012-06-15, 17:59

I love how people act like having an abortion is akin to the incident never happening at all. Like having an abortion wipes the woman's mind clean of the assault.

How on earth are you drawing this conclusion? Again, your side completely disregards the womans feelings to propel your own dogma. I love how people (like you) use broadband philosophy to put everyone into the same profile. It's up to the woman herself to decide what's best for her and to decide what psychological risks to take in the attempt. It certainly isn't up to you.

PlumpRump

2012-06-15, 18:18

How on earth are you drawing this conclusion? Again, your side completely disregards the womans feelings to propel your own dogma. I love how people (like you) use broadband philosophy to put everyone into the same profile. It's up to the woman herself to decide what's best for her and to decide what psychological risks to take in the attempt. It certainly isn't up to you.

Its certainly not up to the human life being extinguished, that's for sure. What is an abortion going to do to reconcile, or ease the situation, other than taking an unborn human life? Does it somehow make her feel better about being raped? Compounding the situation by taking a human life wouldn't put any more of a burden on her plate? She was raped, and now she's voluntarily electing to kill a human being? How is killing a baby "what's best" in any situation?

It shouldn't be anyone's choice to kill a baby. You claim Constitutionalism, yet proudly and vehemently deny the unborn the protection of the 14th Amendment. But according to you, siding with life is nothing more than right-wing, brainwashed dogma. Shocker.

Mayhem

2012-06-15, 18:31

You claim Constitutionalism

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

As far as I'm concerned a human life is not viable until it can recognize suffering. What you're wringing your hands about is smaller than a lady bug and has zero comprehension about anything. The needs of the mother comes first and it is up to her, not her priest, not her congressman, not the President to decide what those needs are.

You Cons really crack me up with your fake concern about human life. Iraq, Afganistan, the Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia of the '90s. I don't hear anything about the preservation of human life in these regards. But show you something that you can only see through a microscope and you just lose your collective minds.

This isn't about the sanctity of human life. This is about keeping women under your control, just like the good ol' days.

PlumpRump

2012-06-15, 18:53

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

Roe v. Wade is not law, its precedent. There's a difference. Even if it were law, Jim Crow was law for a period of time in the United States, was that a good idea simply because it was government sponsored?

As far as I'm concerned a human life is not viable until it can recognize suffering. What you're wringing your hands about is smaller than a lady bug and has zero comprehension about anything. The needs of the mother comes first and it is up to her, not her priest, not her congressman, not the President to decide what those needs are.

I'm glad you have opinions, that's super. But science seems to disagree with you:

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.”

You Cons really crack me up with your fake concern about human life. Iraq, Afganistan, the Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia of the '90s. I don't hear anything about the preservation of human life in these regards. But show you something that you can only see through a microscope and you just lose your collective minds.

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan go, military service is completely voluntary. There hasn't been a selective service draft in this country in nearly 40 years. And as far as Sudan, Bosnia, etc... if we were to have intervened, you would have simply berated the right for policing the world. Its a no win situation with the left, your smuggery and condescension remove the potential for rational debate.

This isn't about the sanctity of human life. This is about keeping women under your control, just like the good ol' days.

Speaking of dogma...

*Go ahead and have the last word. Its a policy I have of not arguing too much with condescending know-it-alls on a Friday.

Mayhem

2012-06-15, 19:04

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan go, military service is completely voluntary. There hasn't been a selective service draft in this country in nearly 40 years. And as far as Sudan, Bosnia, etc... if we were to have intervened, you would have simply berated the right for policing the world. Its a no win situation with the left, your smuggery and condescension remove the potential for rational debate.

I screamed to the high heavens that we should deploy the entire 101st Airborne, Marine Expeditionary Force and however many carriers we needed to combat the evil in Bosnia. So swing and a miss. I also feel the same way about Sudan and have the entire time. Strike two. And I have no idea where "voluntary service" falls into this debate. Not a strike, but nice job fouling it off.

Back to the point at hand. The military has been woefully inadequate in protecting females in uniform. It is up to the military and the government to use all means available, including the avenue of abortion to help these soldiers, etc. when these obscene acts are committed. Are you finding that smug or are you just quitting the field of battle in the face of inevitable defeat?

vodkazvictim

2012-06-15, 19:39

They do "support our troops," by fighting Dems tooth and nail for larger defense budgets. No one is forcing the woman to give birth to the baby, they are simply saying that the federal government is not going to subsidize abortions, under any condition.

But I'm missing your point, I suppose. "Make abortions, not war," right?
As Mayhem said, both sides are reducing defense budgets.
But reducing defense budgets doesn't necessarily mean a better military; larger military budgets are approved by politicians because they then get cash from the arms companies.
Just remember; a larger defense budget is useless when it is merely a gift to corrupt corporations that don't give a shit about producing a good quality military product, but only producing a profit (this point also goes for health and education services.

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

As far as I'm concerned a human life is not viable until it can recognize suffering. What you're wringing your hands about is smaller than a lady bug and has zero comprehension about anything. The needs of the mother comes first and it is up to her, not her priest, not her congressman, not the President to decide what those needs are.

You Cons really crack me up with your fake concern about human life. Iraq, Afganistan, the Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia of the '90s. I don't hear anything about the preservation of human life in these regards. But show you something that you can only see through a microscope and you just lose your collective minds.

This isn't about the sanctity of human life. This is about keeping women under your control, just like the good ol' days.
Another point is that the quality of life for the child should be good; lets say a young, poor single woman gets raped, the child will grow up with no father, a permanently tired mother who hasn't got the time, resources (cash) or experience (age)to give the child a good life.
Surely under those circumstances it is better for the child's happiness to abort it; no life is surely better than a miserable life. And guess what? Capitalism guarantees that the children of the poor will have miserable lives.

Master Roshi

2012-06-15, 19:47

the day after pill should be available to all victims of rape immediately IMO which means nothing around here ;)

Will E Worm

2012-06-16, 16:28

the day after pill should be available to all victims of rape immediately IMO which means nothing around here ;)